Pentagon Planning Army and Marine Reductions as Cuts in the Defense Budget.....

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon outlined a plan Thursday for slowing the growth of military spending, including cutting the size of the Army and Marine Corps, retiring older planes and trimming war costs.The Army would shrink from a peak of 570,000 to 490,000 within five years, and the Marines would drop by 20,000, to 182,000. Those are considerable declines, but both services will still be slightly larger than on 9/11, before they began a decade of war. Both will keep their footholds abroad, although the Army will decrease its presence in Europe and the Marines plan to increase theirs in Asia.

Panetta said the administration will ask Congress for $525 billion to run the Pentagon in 2013 — $6 billion less than the current budget. War costs, which are not considered part of the base budget, would decline from $115 billion to $88 billion, reflecting the completion of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.The plan Panetta presented Thursday covers the first five years of that span and would cut a cumulative total of $259 billion in planned spending.

In a bid to pre-empt election-year Republican criticism, Panetta said the plan begins to shift the Pentagon's focus from the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to future challenges in Asia, the Mideast and in cyberspace. More special operations forces like the Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden will be available around the world, he said, and the Pentagon will stress improvements in cyberdefenses.

Among other details Panetta disclosed:
--The Air Force would retire some older planes including about two dozen C-5A cargo aircraft and 65 of its oldest C-130 cargo planes.
-- The Navy would keep a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers but retire seven cruisers earlier than planned. It also would delay purchase of some other ships, including a new Virginia-class submarine.
--Purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets, to be fielded by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, would be slowed.
--Current plans for building a new generation of submarines that carry long-range nuclear missiles would be delayed by two years. The current fleet of nuclear-capable bombers and land-based nuclear missiles would be left unchanged.
--Military pay raises will remain on track until 2015, when the pace of increase will be slowed by an undetermined amount.....snip~

Why should we be providing more Special Operations Services around the World? What focus would change with the ME? Plus Obama wanted to close some more bases but will hold up until after the election year.

I don't have a problem with reducing our footprint in the EU. Let them spend their money for their own defenses and protections. But if we are going to focus on Asia and SE Asia then we best have our $#@! together. Not like with this Arab Spring and their Civil Wars.

Right, I'm all for reducing the expenses providing defense and enforcement for Europe and nations around the world. Those numbers still look plenty large enough to me. A small cutback is far less draining on our military than getting bogged down in pointless wars.

if we weren't police 3/4 of the world and have 900 or so bases around the world we could cut our military to about 30 percent of what it currently is and with todays technology kick everyones ass

The eastern world, it is exploding, violence flaring bullets loading. you are old enough to kill , but not for voting, this whole crazy world is just to frustrating, and you tell me over and over and over again my friend, you don't believe we are on the EVE of DESTRUCTION.

Never approach a bull from the front, A horse from behind, or a fool from any direction.

Obama's Joint Chief agreed with the cuts in manpower too. Also Word is that Clinton wants out of the S.O.S. That she has told Obama and is waiting for him to pick another so that she can get out. Think she may possibly run against him as more and more Democrats are voting against him on his bills? Or do people think Obama has leveraged her and the party off?

As I was heaing the talk on the Econimic numbers on the way in this morning. They suddenly began talking about how there are 32 major elections going on across the planet this year. That how the EU Blastzone moved to the Sovereign debt crisis. That for the global market that these elections are key for leadership to take control of this sovereign debt crisis. The clincher was in speaking to all those Economic experts and Big Bankers are all in Davos(sp) Including Soros. Assessments about the American election were that Obama is expected to win and carry on current economic policies that have been instrumental in helping to stablilize the World markets. Despite Romney running for the Presidency. Also there was Obama's Former Economic Advisor Larry Summers.

What bothers me is they were all talking like this is assured as the convo went back to the EU Blastzone. Talking about how the ECB and the IMF are like acting in the same respect as our FED. Using Qunatative easing. But expect a 2% loss in GDP this year going into recession. What also bothers me is the Europeans attitude that the rest of the world has to come along an infuse their countries with money so that it wont affect other markets the world over. As if all it is assured and life goes on. Hey all must help to take care of them and in return they promise to keep things budgeted up and not to spend and to get rid of the waste? They havent done so for over 60 yrs and it's not going to change right away thinking they can spend their way out. Thats 10 yrs of them counting on big time money from us.

Right, I'm all for reducing the expenses providing defense and enforcement for Europe and nations around the world. Those numbers still look plenty large enough to me. A small cutback is far less draining on our military than getting bogged down in pointless wars.

Beat me to it. Would much rather see the reduction of pointless and endless wars. Western military intervention only strengthens reactionary Islamists. Not as if putting McDonald's in Afghanistan is gonna help

It doesnt matter what the west does. As far as strengthening reactionary Islamists the west doesnt have to do a $#@! thing. Inaction brings the same results and only strengthens their resolve that they cannot be defeated.

History shows that Islam has attempted expansion about 4 times in its short history. Even if Islam again coalesced into a Caliphate it is unlikely that it could expand through offensive military action. About the only weapon that they know how to make is IEDs. They don't even manufacture their own assault rifles, much less tanks and airplanes. An you aren't going to succeed in an offensive military action against the West that way.

But I think that they know all they need to do is immigrate into the West, breed over the decades, and then use "democracy" to win their long war.

Thus, the West can ignore the Muslim lands (once we replace oil as a major transportation fuel), and can protect itself by not allowing Muslim immigration to the West. In fact many western Muslims may well need to be expelled.